Is It Time To Reconsider Voting Rights Yet?

[Ziggurat]

That doesn't follow at all. I know she was seen as establishment, but that doesn't change anything about what I said.

Of course it follows. You haven't considered what it would mean if her establishment roots were the problem. You can only imagine the scandals being the problem.

 

[Loss Leader]

And none of any of this, governors included, means they will necessarily be a good president.

In fact, James Buchanan had a massively impressive resume when he was elected. He'd fought in a war, been a state representative, a US representative, a US senator, ambassador to Russia, and secretary of state. And he is almost universally considered the Worst President Ever.*


*Present office-holder excepted.

 

[psionl0]

That's the question. If you don't have an answer, maybe your proposal is premature.

It's not much of a question if you can't argue a case for keeping the election of the POTUS in the hands of faceless men and women instead of having the people vote directly.

The EC rubber stamps the voters anyhow so it's more of a question of making the EC representative of the voters than anything else.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Please discus.

The real problem is lack of voter participation. Most Americans generally fall into a middle-right or middle-left range. But the people most likely to vote in primaries are people with strong opinions. Less than half of eligible voters actually voted in the general election, and even fewer during the primaries. In non-presidential years, the numbers are even smaller. And now the Repubs are doing their best to make voting even harder for people who aren't their "sort."

The solution is to making voting easier, with automatic registration, early voting, longer polling hours, mail ballots (two states conduct elections entirely by mail), etc. Some countries even require people to vote, and assess small fines if they don't. I don't think that could work in the U.S., but you could create incentives. Suppose everybody who voted got a small tax credit? Or suppose voters were entered in a national lottery, with a few big, well-publicized prizes and a bunch of small ones?

I think it's a mistake to say that people who didn't vote your way are invariably ignorant. The system gives voters two candidates and makes them choose one. The voters aren't deciding that one is the best, just the least worst.

 

[Loss Leader]

The EC rubber stamps the voters anyhow so it's more of a question of making the EC representative of the voters than anything else.

... which would give urban areas an advantage over rural ones. There's nothing inherently undemocratic about how our system is arranged. It's the lack of information among the voters.

The problem, IMHO, is that governance is really arcane. It's a profession and the top job should go to someone with experience in it. I don't trust an amateur to cut my hair. I prefer a professional with training and some experience. I don't think the bar for President of the United States should be lower than that.

 

[Bob001]

... which would give urban areas an advantage over rural ones.

....

Why shouldn't it? Urban areas, broadly speaking, are where the people -- the voters -- live, and "one person, one vote" is a core principle of our democracy. Why should rural voters have a disproportionate impact on the election results? If you want to argue "states' rights," you may as well defend slavery and Jim Crow.

 

[Bob001]

....
The problem, IMHO, is that governance is really arcane. It's a profession and the top job should go to someone with experience in it. I don't trust an amateur to cut my hair. I prefer a professional with training and some experience. I don't think the bar for President of the United States should be lower than that.

Generally speaking, that's the way the system works. People run for local office or the state legislature, then Congress or the State House before they run for president. Clinton was a two-term senator and SecState. Sanders was a mayor, congressman and senator. Cruz and Rubio were sitting senators. Jeb! was a two-term governor from a political family. Pence was a congressman and governor. Etc., etc. Trump is an aberration in too many ways to count. And we should never forget that he was winning early primaries with 20% of the vote. 80% of Republican voters wanted somebody else, but their votes were split 15 ways. If the Republicans had started with a smaller field, chances are the nominee would have been Rubio, Bush or Cruz.

 

[psionl0]

... which would give urban areas an advantage over rural ones. There's nothing inherently undemocratic about how our system is arranged. It's the lack of information among the voters.

I thought that states voted as a whole and didn't weight rural votes. Do you think that states like California are predominately rural?

The problem, IMHO, is that governance is really arcane. It's a profession and the top job should go to someone with experience in it. I don't trust an amateur to cut my hair. I prefer a professional with training and some experience. I don't think the bar for President of the United States should be lower than that.

You never know how somebody will perform in the top job. A genius could do more harm than a bloody idiot.

Much better to clip their wings than to let any individual have too much power.

 

[logger]

If having a more dictatorial government means no more people like Trump can get the vote, than I'm all for it. The people have spoken and proven they categorically are not capable making rational and informed decisions about who should or should not be steering this boat.

Have a better idea? Provide it or hit the street.

I like the way it is, but I sure as hell hope your side adopts this idea!!!

 

[Bob001]

I thought that states voted as a whole and didn't weight rural votes. Do you think that states like California are predominately rural?
....

Electoral votes are allocated by state, but because every state has two senators, individual voters in small rural states have more influence than in the more populous states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/u...al-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html
http://secure.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-rural-voters-trump-231266
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/50173...ed-a-big-part-in-helping-trump-defeat-clinton

 

[psionl0]

Electoral votes are allocated by state, but because every state has two senators, individual voters in small rural states have more influence than in the more populous states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/u...al-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html
http://secure.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-rural-voters-trump-231266
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/50173...ed-a-big-part-in-helping-trump-defeat-clinton

The logic is faulty. California with 55 EC votes has more votes than the bottom half dozen or so states combined.

Giving all of those votes to the Democrats gives that party a massive advantage. Assuming that the 5 states with 3 EC votes each all voted republican, that would give the Democrats a 40 vote advantage.

If PR was used, then California would probably allocate 32 votes to Democrats and 23 votes to the Republicans. Assuming that the five bottom states each gave 2 votes to the republicans and 1 vote to the democrats, that would be a total of 37 votes to the democrats and 33 votes to the republicans - a much more modest difference of 4 votes.

 

[Bob001]

The logic is faulty. California with 55 EC votes has more votes than the bottom half dozen or so states combined.

Giving all of those votes to the Democrats gives that party a massive advantage. Assuming that the 5 states with 3 EC votes each all voted republican, that would give the Democrats a 40 vote advantage.

If PR was used, then California would probably allocate 32 votes to Democrats and 23 votes to the Republicans. Assuming that the five bottom states each gave 2 votes to the republicans and 1 vote to the democrats, that would be a total of 37 votes to the democrats and 33 votes to the republicans - a much more modest difference of 4 votes.

You're missing the point. The issue isn't state vs. state. The issue is that individual voters -- people -- in rural states have more influence over the outcome than in urban states. That's how Hillary Clinton could lose with three million more popular votes, and Al Gore could lose with half-a-million more popular votes.

The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/u...al-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6e5a...p-electors-cite-rural-voice-electoral-college

 

[psionl0]

You're missing the point. The issue isn't state vs. state. The issue is that individual voters -- people -- in rural states have more influence over the outcome than in urban states. That's how Hillary Clinton could lose with three million more popular votes, and Al Gore could lose with half-a-million more popular votes.

What do you think I was referring to? Robots?

My point still stands. Disenfranchising nearly half the voters because they voted for the "wrong" candidate in their respective states gives the voters in the more populous states a disproportionate say in the makeup of the EC.

 

[Noztradamus]

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.

She didn't win because she's a woman.

Don't bother arguing that, you'll sound stupid.

It appears nobody here understood what you were exactly saying

 

[Belz...]

Look, I'm sure that there were a handful of rational, intellectual folks that honestly thought he was the better option. But all 428 of them didn't amount to squat.

Just because someone has a college degree does not mean they're educated.

I didn't give them a standardized test to check their academic credentials. I'm saying that plenty of smart people were taken in for one reason or another. Denying it because it's uncomfortable doesn't change that.

 

[Belz...]

Of course it follows. You haven't considered what it would mean if her establishment roots were the problem. You can only imagine the scandals being the problem.

Yes I have considered it. So not only does it not follow that I haven't, it's also not true. So your logic is both invalid and unsound.

But I'm sure you'll be along to tell me that I don't know what I considered, and that you know it better than me.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What do you think I was referring to? Robots?

My point still stands. Disenfranchising nearly half the voters because they voted for the "wrong" candidate in their respective states gives the voters in the more populous states a disproportionate say in the makeup of the EC.

We can pick fifteen different ways to parse the results - they're all based on the winner-take-all situation.

For instance.... On the one hand, Hillary won 55 votes in CA with a four million plurality. She only needed one vote more than Trump so all those extras don't count. Talk about your "disenfranchising"! On the other hand, Hillary gets 8.5 million in CA to get 55 votes and if you count down alphabetically, Trump has to take six states to get his 8.5 million - but he got 74 EV. Or, you could count his plurality and you need to drill down to his first fifteen states before he gets near to her +4.0 mil. 15 states and 144 EV.

Fair? Unfair? Not saying. You could say that Trump and the Republicans sure got the bang for their buck(vote) and that the Dems squandered their wealth of support in the liberal enclaves. +4 mil, but -90 in the Electoral College? That hurts.

It's all part and parcel as to why the winner-take-all system really ought to go. The EC would be fine if it was proportional.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It would be interesting (not necessarily better but interesting) if we revisted on the original idea that the Vice President was the person who came in second in the Presidential Race, not simply a co-runner with the winning President and expanded it to President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House (Since the VP is already President of the Senate.)

If nothing else a Trump Presidency, Hillary Vice Presidency, and Johnson Speaker of the House government wouldn't fail to be entertaining.

But more seriously I do get what Foolmewunz is getting at. "First past the post, winner take all" elections combined with majority power in Congress and the Supreme do disenfranchise a lot of people, even before things like political polarization and gerrymandering get added to the mix.

Tens of million of people support the major party candidates. Even the minor party candidates routinely get millions of votes. Should those people have no representation?

Is the idea of a political... errr "Consolation Prize" all that crazy?

 

[LTC8K6]

Would Hillary have taken the VP spot?

She would largely be a figure head.

And what happens if she declines the post?

 

[Upchurch]

Of course it follows. You haven't considered what it would mean if her establishment roots were the problem. You can only imagine the scandals being the problem.

But why is it a problem?

Corruption? Cronyism? Trump has all that and more without the benefit of any relevant knowledge or experience.